Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 111

Thread: Why did the Italians lose?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    You can now get to a different point though and that is that the Italian Merchant fleet was decimated during 1940 to 43. Even if the transports were sunk empty that impacts on their possibility of being available later on.

    If they are not there especially the tankers then no troops or supplies can be carried in them, so can't be sunk. Supplies were so short that fuel was being flown in rather than tankered why would that be.

    Was there always a surplus of shipping that meant that the Commando Supremo decided not to supply the forces in Africa, or was there a shortage of shipping due to allied interdiction.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    From one of the websites (excuse the translations)

    Hence the shocking truth: the desperate efforts of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine in the hardest 29 months in which the battle took place the Libyan convoys made it possible to deliver 91.6% of men, 80% fuel, 88 % of vehicles and weaponry, and 86% of the other loads

    November 1941
    The month of November was indeed tragic was lost 70% of the material transported and more than 90% of fuel senca count all the ships, military and merchant ships, lost.

    Jan to July 1942 (Malta neutralised)
    Ultimately though, in the months that some have called decisive, during this long period as much as 96% fuel and 93% of the material was handed over to Libyan ports.

    Tunisia
    Men 93%
    Fuel 71%
    Vehicles and spares 80%
    Weapons and Ammunition 68%
    Other stores 70%

    I have picked all the figures quoted and I cant see how the figures could be as high as you claimed.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    The Italian merchant fleet was decimated before the war started: the 37% of the vessels over 500 tons (the most important), plus others, were surprised abroad by the Italian declaration of war and lost; another clear demonstration that the Italian war was a sudden decision trusting on the behaviour of a "conflict already over".

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    I noticed on several websites the figure of 212 merchant ships over 2000 tonnes (many the newest) being caught out of the Med when war was declared.

    Seemed like Mussolini was hoping for a quick easy victory.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Like someone said here before, they just weren't very motivated. I also think it was because of who they are as a people. I mean no offence, but just look at them since the war up until today. They have had like 40 or 50 different governments and they can't even agree to pick up the trash arond Naples. (That has been going on for years now). It's ironic, Americans of Italian descent fought well in WW2 and all our succeding wars. John Baslione the Medal of Honor winner is one name that comes to mind. I think it is more in the Italian national character to eat good food, drink good wine, and to make love than to fight in wars. The modern Italian simply has no similarity to any of Caesar's legions.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    Like someone said here before, they just weren't very motivated. I also think it was because of who they are as a people. I mean no offence, but just look at them since the war up until today. They have had like 40 or 50 different governments and they can't even agree to pick up the trash arond Naples. (That has been going on for years now). It's ironic, Americans of Italian descent fought well in WW2 and all our succeding wars. John Baslione the Medal of Honor winner is one name that comes to mind. I think it is more in the Italian national character to eat good food, drink good wine, and to make love than to fight in wars. The modern Italian simply has no similarity to any of Caesar's legions.
    Sorry, but I have to disagree totally. You are talking about the usual cliches about Italians "spaghetti & mandolino".
    I have to say, first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans... do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of "free Italy"? The actual shit dedscends from those... like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too. And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism, but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA and some of CCCP. Your own slaves were and are just shit.
    If Mussolini di not entered the war, he would had been here still now, and most likely Italy - as a state entity - would not be the shit that is now.

    As you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSrrxBhiHnA

    Italy of 1939 was a century before the trash of nowdays, in every sense. And that's not fault of the Italian people, but of the shit politicians and camorristi - that is the same - that ruled this country, thanks to you, since 1945.
    I cite, for reaching a conclusion, an opinion of James Gregor, professor at UC Berkeley. In his book "Interpretation of Fascism", the author points out that the Italian industrial production, compared to 1913, went up 81 points in the years before the great depression. Italy stunned the world, writes James Gregor, presenting an increase of 41% of overall production globally, outstripping France (40%) and German (31%), American (26%), the English (16, 5%) productions. Add to this that in those years, the regime offered to workers and their families, a number of social proposals, hitherto unknown not only in Europe but worldwide. Yes, of course, Italy had still a big delay respect to the western industrialized countries, but this gap was reduced as never before. And the economical basis and structures put in the Fascist years permitted the reconstruction and the Italian ecomical boom after the war.
    And yet James Gregor stating: <A good reason can therefore support the thesis that fascism was a dictatorship of development and modernization of mass dedicated to the modernization of the Italian economy (in contrast) for example to the disastrous decline in agricultural and industrial production which characterized the first decade of Bolshevik rule in the USSR>.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    141

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Laconia forgiveness but I fully agree with DVX, it is still fun in the 21st century the American you still have this kind of vision of European countries, it is not only wrong, but they prove that you are still living in your small world, without knowing anything about the mentality or a life of European peoples, it is high time to wake up. Also your view of politics, that of Italy notament is childish, and you ask the study a little closer, you'll find that you will remove a lot of things.
    Friendly Fred
    He who asks a question remains ignorant five minutes, who does not ask remains ignorant of his life.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    Of course it was absolutely false. Obviously the Soviets attacked the "weak points" around Stalingrad: Hungarians, Rumenians and Italians, all lacking of AT guns, heavy artillery, motorization and tanks. All left, by the German command, to cover positions too wide for infantry moving by feet.
    And even with this obvious consideration, the cause of the failure of German leaders becomes "the cowardice of Italians and Rumenians". Nazi fables. Read the book of Adolf Galland...
    Just without personal insulting. I just was quoted the original Hitler's oppinion that Albert Speer posted to the the true in his memours.
    as fo me , i absolutly agree with you that catastrophe in Stalingrad was determined NOT by "Italian cowardice". Actualy the real catastrophe has happend when the Red Army had stopped the tank group of Mainstein, which went to Stalingrad to de-blocade the frozen 6 army.
    But for sake of true i have to ad that Germans also had lack of AT artillery and ammo at all.So their allies wasn't an exclusion.
    And nevertheless, Italian Armir resisted more than the others allies armies, and his first backdown was caused by the sudden and not communicated retreat of the German 298th division that should had reinforced the Italian line.... The Alpine corp resisted fiercily, mpuntain troops wasted in the steppe plains by the German command that should use it in Caucaso.
    Another think was true instead: of course Italian soldiers fought just for duty, and not for hate. Perhaps many of them hated the communism, but certainly not the Russian people.
    that fact the GErmans knew for sure..
    therefore they never actualy trust enough to Italians.But this is not your failure.
    When the Soviet-German war was an annhilation war between the soldiers and the civilians too and an old affair, Italian soldiers simply did their duty without hate in a far country. You should know that Russian people used to say "Talianski karasciò" "Italian good people", especially respect to the hard German ruling... German people had been brooding spirit of revenge for 20 years, Italian people hadn't.
    Italy was pushed into the war just for political reasons, realistic or cinic, but of course they never are enough to make into a people a "fierce will" against a "political" enemy that's not too an "historical" enemy (like for example Austria for Italy in WWI).
    .. that is just another one more point against ..Mussoliny. Who let Hitler to involve italia into the sensless ( for you) war.
    Last edited by Chevan; 07-22-2011 at 11:49 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    ....first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans... do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of "free Italy"? The actual shit dedscends from those... like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too. And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism, but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA
    You did not see yet whom they have installed on ...Germany
    And yet James Gregor stating: <A good reason can therefore support the thesis that fascism was a dictatorship of development and modernization of mass dedicated to the modernization of the Italian economy (in contrast) for example to the disastrous decline in agricultural and industrial production which characterized the first decade of Bolshevik rule in the USSR>.
    But why then such an "industrialized and mechanized" Italian army has come to Russia on horse traction,without single AT guns and tank?Where they were suddenly attacked by bolshevick army with tanks and artillery. Seems to me the James Gregor nothing read about second decade of Bolshevic rule
    Last edited by Chevan; 07-22-2011 at 08:15 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    I have to say, first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans... do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of "free Italy"? The actual shit dedscends from those... like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too.
    Didn't Italians vote for Italian governments?

    How did America control all post-war elections?

    Since when has the mafia been an American creation? I thought it went the other way, with the Italian mafia infiltrating American public, commercial and criminal life. If so, why is it America's problem if Italian mafia infiltrated Italian politics, as well as Italian commercial and criminal life?

    Your complaint seems to me like the usual anti-American 'blame America for everything that's wrong in the world' approach. I'll happily agree that America has been outstanding in some clumsy international ****-ups of mammoth proportions and an awful lot of smaller stuff and that American arrogance at times is unbearable, but that has also been the case for just about every lesser nation in proportion to its own conception of its own political and military power before and after WWII. Not unlike Italy's misadventures in Ethiopia, Libya and Greece leading up to and during WWII.

    While those of anti-American sentiment will never admit it, America was the lynchpin in facing down the now forgotten aggressive communism which emanated from the USSR, and to a lesser extent a more isolationist China, in the first few decades following the end of WWII. Given a choice between living in a world run by Eisenhower or Kennedy and Stalin or Kruschev, it's a no-brainer for anyone who prefers a good and free life to government regulated deprivation and misery.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism,
    I think the original purpose was to defeat the Axis powers, of which Italy was one of the two main ones in Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA and some of CCCP.
    Why do you focus in your earlier comments only on the US while ignoring the USSR when you regard both as members of an oligarchy which ruled Italy?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    If Mussolini di not entered the war, he would had been here still now, and most likely Italy - as a state entity - would not be the shit that is now.
    Well, Mussolini did enter the war, so you'll just have live with that decision by an Italian to start the process you claim subordinated Italy to American control. However, if Mussolini was here now he would be about 128 years old, which is about as likely as some of his ambitions and some of your anti-American complaints. And that was a purely Italian decision by an Italian running Italy. I don't see how it's America's fault that an Italian dictator started a war and then lost it, unless you think America (and Britain and New Zealand and Brazil and others) should have taken a dive in the ninth round to make Mussolini look better than he was.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    Italy of 1939 was a century before the trash of nowdays, in every sense. And that's not fault of the Italian people, but of the shit politicians and camorristi - that is the same - that ruled this country, thanks to you, since 1945.
    Could you show how it is that the Italian people have been excluded from voting for their governments since 1945 and that these governments have all been imposed by the US, CIA and USSR?

    It seems to me that you want to blame America for everything that's gone wrong in Italy since Mussolini started a war. It also seems to me that it might be fairer to blame Mussolini for starting the war, and to blame the Italians for the governments they have elected since.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Seems to me the James Gregor nothing read about second decade of Bolshevic rule
    But how many millions lives did it cost? Surely the forced industrialization of Soviet Union was a great success, industrially speaking, but how much did it cost? This price was worth it?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Didn't Italians vote for Italian governments?

    How did America control all post-war elections?
    Elections it's not a synonimous of democracy. A formal and apparent domocracy doesn't mean a substancial one. In Italy there is a substancial oligarchy and the role of the people is just to put a cross over a paper (or a bit more). For example the politicians are elected by the parties, the people just put the cross over the party symbol...

    How they influenced the Italian politics? Dollars, pressions and last but not least covered operations (see in italian "strategia della tensione").
    Here, for example (in Italian) like the CIA and the NATO financed a righty party: http://www.ilcovo.mastertopforum.net...ggi-vt434.html
    And this one was not the most important for USA politics in Italy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Since when has the mafia been an American creation? I thought it went the other way, with the Italian mafia infiltrating American public, commercial and criminal life. If so, why is it America's problem if Italian mafia infiltrated Italian politics, as well as Italian commercial and criminal life?
    Absolutely true, but one of the merit of the fascism was the defeat of the mafia, that was KO and silenced for 20 years. It was resumed by the Allies that asked (in USA) its help for the operation Husky. After that time the problem reappered worse and better connected with the new political parties, (all antifascists) especially those near the US positions (like the DC). After the war many mafiosi made themselves to pass as "victims of political persecution" by the fascism...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    While those of anti-American sentiment will never admit it, America was the lynchpin in facing down the now forgotten aggressive communism which emanated from the USSR, and to a lesser extent a more isolationist China, in the first few decades following the end of WWII. Given a choice between living in a world run by Eisenhower or Kennedy and Stalin or Kruschev, it's a no-brainer for anyone who prefers a good and free life to government regulated deprivation and misery.

    I agree and in fact I said better the USA rule than the USSR one, there is no match. But this doesn't mean that the USA "sons of a bitch" - to paraphrase a famous statement of Henry Kissinger - are not sons of a bitch. There must be a reason if in south America peoples dislike the USA and Kissinger style US politics: all the criminals, as long as "anticommunist", installed and protected by the USA had done perhaps worse than they would be communists. And these criminals, often, are reckognized for what they are only when they revolt against the USA interests.
    Some examples? The military dictature in Argentina, Contras, Noriega, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, all Kissinger's good "sons of a bitch, but our sons of a bitch" and friends until functional to the US interests.
    In Italy the same, even if they're more stealers than killers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Why do you focus in your earlier comments only on the US while ignoring the USSR when you regard both as members of an oligarchy which ruled Italy?
    Because Italy remained under the western control (fortunatly). But we had the biggest communist party of Europe, and the communists stealed and steal like their other same/opposite parties, obeied to foreign orders like their same/opposite parties and they have the same biggest responsabilities in the actual disaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Well, Mussolini did enter the war, so you'll just have live with that decision by an Italian to start the process you claim subordinated Italy to American control. However, if Mussolini was here now he would be about 128 years old, which is about as likely as some of his ambitions and some of your anti-American complaints. And that was a purely Italian decision by an Italian running Italy. I don't see how it's America's fault that an Italian dictator started a war and then lost it, unless you think America (and Britain and New Zealand and Brazil and others) should have taken a dive in the ninth round to make Mussolini look better than he was.
    I'm the first to say that by the war Mussolini ruined Italy, himself and his regime (btw, France and UK forced him to approach Germany). But apart this final disaster, the fascism did more for Italian people in 20 years than this gang of foreign-directed stealers had done later in 60. There must be a reason if in the international statistics about corruption Italy results worse than Ruanda. The worst fascist hierarcs was a giant respect to the actual shit robber politician. And even if the lefty Italian historical reasearch tried to find out a wide corruption in the Fascism, there is no historical evidence about that and Mussolini personally ever resulted totally clear. Yes, of course there were some episodes of corruption among the hierarchs and in the colonies, but in the complex small facts respect to the actual shames that have been involving from years and years the highest offices of the Republic.
    Last edited by DVX; 07-22-2011 at 03:50 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Elections it's not a synonimous of democracy. A formal and apparent domocracy doesn't mean a substancial one. In Italy there is a substancial oligarchy and the role of the people is just to put a cross over a paper (or a bit more). For example the politicians are elected by the parties, the people just put the cross over the party symbol...
    I think you will find that is most democracy's vote, definitely how it is done in the UK. We do not select the candidates their party does. In the UK we also have corrupt MP's, political and monetary considerations with business's and country's to further a particular governments or individuals aims. It is not just an Italian thing to be blamed on another country.

    Rich people can pay for party's and votes and get who they wish to be elected into power, no matter the party they have to pay back in some way the financial support etc the received.

    At the end of the day it is the voters in the country who make the choice not some mythical foreign power forcing them to put the 'X' against party 'Y'.

    Mussolini more than anyone else led Italy down the path it has ended up on. blaming others for your own past mistakes is not very productive.
    Last edited by leccy; 07-22-2011 at 06:42 PM. Reason: spelling
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    ...

    How they influenced the Italian politics? Dollars, pressions and last but not least covered operations (see in italian "strategia della tensione").
    Here, for example (in Italian) like the CIA and the NATO financed a righty party: http://www.ilcovo.mastertopforum.net...ggi-vt434.html
    And this one was not the most important for USA politics in Italy...
    The CIA did indeed deliver funds to Italian centrist and rightist parties. But was that any worse than the Soviets providing vastly more financing for Italian communists? This was indeed why the CIA did so to begin with--in response to the KGB (or was it then still the NKVD?) subsidies if the Italian left. And funding political parties is not the same as fixing elections...

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default Re: Why did the Italians lose?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    Like someone said here before, they just weren't very motivated. I also think it was because of who they are as a people. I mean no offence, but just look at them since the war up until today. They have had like 40 or 50 different governments and they can't even agree to pick up the trash arond Naples. (That has been going on for years now). It's ironic, Americans of Italian descent fought well in WW2 and all our succeding wars. John Baslione the Medal of Honor winner is one name that comes to mind. I think it is more in the Italian national character to eat good food, drink good wine, and to make love than to fight in wars. The modern Italian simply has no similarity to any of Caesar's legions.
    I think these comments are bit on the ignorant and cliched side. I think you need to read a bit more, I suggest Rick Atkinson's excellent An Army at Dawn followed by Day of Battle. Perhaps you'd have a little more respect for them, especially since I the city you mentioned actually held a bloody uprising against retreating German troops with little aid from the Allies and suffered horrendous reprisals, IIRC. I think there is also a good deal in there about Italian soldiers fighting bitterly in the North African mountains, sometimes well past the time where their ammunition was expended and where both sides were reduced to throwing rocks at one-another...

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •